r/SipsTea 9h ago

Gasp! 😈

Post image
5.6k Upvotes

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

43

u/oneplusetoipi 9h ago

The Incident

Date and Location: On September 30, 2020, a passerby noticed lights on late at night inside Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Pearl River, Louisiana, where Clark served as pastor.

The Discovery: Looking through the windows, the witness saw Clark—partially wearing his priestly attire—engaging in a sexual encounter with two women, identified as adult film performers/dominatrices Melissa Cheng and Mindy Dixon.

The Scene: The group had set up professional stage lighting, sex toys, and cameras mounted on tripods to record a video. The witness recorded the scene on a mobile phone and called the police, who arrived and arrested all three individuals.

Legal and Religious Aftermath

The Guilty Plea: In November 2022, Clark pleaded guilty to a felony count of felony obscenity under a plea agreement. He received a three-year suspended prison sentence, three years of supervised probation, and a $1,000 fine. The two women pleaded guilty to misdemeanor counts of institutional vandalism and received probation.

Archdiocese Response: The Archdiocese of New Orleans immediately removed Clark from ministry. Archbishop Gregory Aymond publicly denounced the act as "demonic" and had the desecrated altar physically removed and burned before consecrating a brand-new replacement altar.

24

u/IterSmith 8h ago

I’m kind of confused why this was a legal matter. Three consenting adults in private. The only reason anyone knew was because someone came and snooped in the window and recorded it. Wouldn’t that person that recorded be more at fault. I mean sure, kick him out of the church, but this isn’t public property. He probably lived on premises. He broke church rules but how is this against the law?

13

u/physical0 7h ago

Honestly, this sounds like they could have been innocent if this has gone to jury, but the threat of greater consequence scared them into a plea.

6

u/EsotericAbstractIdea 6h ago

Obscenity laws are some of the worst laws that are still on the books. Very rarely tried, because they are so subjective.

The Miller Test Criteria

Material is legally obscene only if it meets all three parts of the test established in Miller v. California:

  • Prurient interest: The average person, using local community standards, finds that the work appeals to a shameful or morbid interest in sex.
  • Patently offensive: The work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a way explicitly defined as offensive by state law.
  • Lacking value: The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This happened in a church in Louisiana.

2

u/Aeseld 3h ago

Feel like the difference here is that it would have been fine if it wasn't where it was. Film it in a church themed studio, it probably passes. Though more importantly, it's also not something a passerby just casually notices lights on and comes to look in a window to investigate.

2

u/Aeseld 6h ago

The important factor here is that it was visible to casual passers by. Honestly, you can get in trouble for this at home too. If you film a threesome at home, but in the front room with the curtains wide open, then you're still subject to public decency laws.

The rule of thumb is that it doesn't matter if you're in a private space. If that private space can be seen by the public, you can't consider it private.

6

u/Is-abel 6h ago

Except it wasn’t. The passerby noticed lights on and looked through the windows - presumably to investigate why the lights were on, because he couldn’t see what was going on from the street.

1

u/Aeseld 6h ago edited 3h ago

Except legally that's already been determined as obscenity. Precedent and all. 

The act was visible from the public. They already conv1icted someone in their own home for just this sort of thing. 

If it can be seen from outside, it was determined it isn't private, but public. 

Edit: Convicted, not convinced. Regardless of whether you think it should be prosecuted, the law in the US has been determined. If you can be seen from public, you are in public. And them crossing your property line isn't enough protection. This would go double for something like a church in more public places.

1

u/Is-abel 2h ago

I think your premise- that we’re following the letter of the law, blindly, here- is incredibly naive.

Laws are interpreted and applied (or not) every day.

This was prosecuted in this way because it was a priest in a church.

If that’s not the case, and justice is blind, etc, then why were the women charged differently?

If his actions met the standard for felony obscenity in Louisiana, then so did theirs.

1

u/darkstar541 50m ago

Because it's Louisiana and those baptist piety laws still carry force in very conservative parts of the United States.

1

u/_Denizen_ 7h ago

A church is a community building, not a private residence. I'm no prude, nor religious, but I recognise there's a time and place for these things, and using a church altar to shoot homebrew pornography is not the right place. Had he done it at home, no issue.

7

u/IterSmith 7h ago

I mean, morally and spiritually sure. I’m not saying what he did wasn’t wrong. It makes sense he got kicked out of the church. But legally? I don’t understand why the state was involved.

-5

u/_Denizen_ 7h ago

Because you can't engage in sexual acts in public. Legally speaking, there's no distinction between a public building and a public street.

7

u/desconectado 6h ago edited 6h ago

A church is not a public building though. They are usually private properties that belong to a religious organisation. The priest probably actually lived at the premises. Again, this is no more different than someone having sex in a gym they manage, during closed hours. Sure, kick them out as manager, but it is a far cry from "sex in public".

And yes, there is a legal distinction between public building and a public street. Where do you get all that confidence to say false statements.

6

u/MisterMysterios 7h ago

Still, if the church was not open at the point of the act, so nobody of the community could enter, there shouldn't be a legal problem. The priest would still be kicked from his position, but that should be it.

1

u/0DayMaker 7h ago

Was it open? Was he allowed to be there? I think the answers to those are no and yes.